If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In the NYT's they had this shocking realization. That every thing that has gone wrong is not Bush's fault!

Feckless as it was for Bush to ask Americans to go shopping after 9/11, we all too enthusiastically followed his lead, whether we were wealthy, working-class or in between. We spent a decade feasting on easy money, don’t-pay-as-you-go consumerism and a metastasizing celebrity culture. We did so while a supposedly cost-free, off-the-books war, usually out of sight and out of mind, helped break the bank along with our nation’s spirit and reputation.

We can’t keep blaming 43 for everything, especially now that we don’t have him to kick around anymore. On Tuesday the new president pointedly widened his indictment beyond the sins of his predecessor. He spoke of those at the economic pinnacle who embraced greed and irresponsibility as well as the rest of us who collaborated in our “collective failure to make hard choices.” He branded as sub-American those who “prefer leisure over work or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.” And he wasn’t just asking Paris Hilton “to set aside childish things.” As Linda Hirshman astutely pointed out on The New Republic’s Web site, even Obama’s opening salutation — “My fellow citizens,” not “fellow Americans” — invoked the civic responsibilities we’ve misplaced en masse.

Has the Times come to a realization that Blaming Bush for every thing wasn't correct, or that their readers got tired of the BS? :eek:

Not too long ago, I received an invitation in the mail to subscribe to NYT. I filled in the form and sent it back.

Perhaps I didn't fill in everything they wanted me too. I wrote a few little notes telling them how much I "appreciated" their liberal bias. I didn't exactly give them my credit card number. In fact they didn't even get my name. They did get to pay for the postage, though, as they had kindly provided a postage-paid reply envelope. I proudly did my little part to accelerate their impending doom.

What, the NYT's pays postage? I figured as the official mouthpiece of the DUMBocRAT party, they had franking privileges.

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.C. S. LewisDo not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:Ayn Rand

Well, given the astronomical cost of that d---ed paper($1 weekday, $3 Sunday...right?), I'm even better off picking up the local 50˘..well, as of January, 75˘...paper. Better yet, I can visit their website for free!

One thing of note...the NYT may be a paper, but the company NYT owns many local papers nationwide. I'd have to say that the reporting of my local NYT-owned paper isn't overtly liberal. In fact, I think their opinion/letters-to-the-editor section is phenomenally well-balanced (although they do post some radical opinions...but from both sides). In the last couple of days:

"Because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex; it will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principals and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours." -Reagan

The NYT has to change it's tune because if they don't some of that smut might rub off on Barry. People might start to look at things and think . . . . hows come this crap didn't change when Bush got out of office?

Nah, their just covering the bases. They want to be able to say that they saw it coming when the Messiah's luster starts to rub off. Now, they won't actually come out against the Messiah until the mainstream starts turning, they just want to be prepared to go the way the wind blows.